Will military conscription return after the November election? Both Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry have said they would not reinstate it, but presidents have been known to change their minds. A more significant constraint is that the draft would be highly unpopular, thus weakening support for military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, the nation's military leaders have often stated publicly that the United States is better off with an all-volunteer military.

Liberal Democrats in favor of military conscription, however, have argued for it on grounds of social fairness. But even this argument is weaker than it seems, argues Ivan Eland, senior fellow and director of the Independent Institute's Center on Peace & Liberty:

"According to the rhetoric of liberal Democrats who advocate conscription, a volunteer military effectively requires socially disadvantaged groups to die disproportionately for their country," Eland writes in a recent op-ed.

"The liberals correctly argue that poor minorities join the military in greater numbers because they have less economic opportunity in the civilian economy. Although African-Americans are somewhat over represented in the enlisted ranks of the Army and Marines (Hispanics are actually underrepresented), they are less represented in ground combat units of those services. The reality is that many African-Americans choose to join military supply and logistics units, rather than combat units, to better acquire specific skills that are more easily transferable to the private sector."

However, Eland cautions the public against relying on policymakers to see the folly of conscription, despite its very low societal benefits and very high societal costs: "After the election, the public should remain vigilant of any attempts to bring back this white elephant from a bygone era," Eland concludes.

October 25: 6:30-8:30pm (ET), Book signing at Labyrinth Books, 536 West 112th Street, New York City, 212-865-1588

October 28: 4:00-5:00pm (PT), Interview on "All-American Talk Radio with Peter B. Collins." Available on regular radio stations, Sirius satellite radio, and the Internet at http://www.iciclenetworks.com/aatr.htm.

Although Pres. George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry have said that they favor an increase in the minimum wage (their disagreement seems to be only over the size and immediacy of an increase), ninety percent of economists polled by the AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW agreed that "minimum wage laws increase unemployment among low-skilled workers," writes Ben Powell, director of the Independent Institute's Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation, in a new op-ed for SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES.

Sen. Kerry favors a hike of more than 35 percent by 2007, followed by annual increases that keep pace with inflation. Pres. Bush favors a "reasonable" increase over "an extended period of time," according to a campaign spokesman quoted in the WASHINGTON POST. But how reasonable is it to increase the unemployment of low-skilled workers?

"If most economists were called on to define 'reasonable,' it should mean nothing short of 'zero increase and repeal of the existing requirement,'" writes Powell.

"Schwarzenegger, a former economics major, had the good sense to veto a California bill that would have increased the minimum wage. Hopefully our presidential candidates and the voters of Nevada and Florida [where the minimum wage has become an election issue] will learn the same lessons Schwarzenegger learned in econ 101 so long ago."

Would you have voluntarily paid for the costs of the Iraq war knowing what you know now? The probability is high that you would not have, according to Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Independent Institute, in his most recent op-ed, "Bush's Iraq War: An Offer You Would Have Refused."

Suppose each household had to pay an equal share of the total Iraq war costs to date, say, $200 billion, as well as risk the injury or death of a household member -- roughly in proportion to the risk of injury or death of the U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq. How many citizens, asks Higgs, would have been willing to accept this contract?

"My guess is almost none," writes Higgs. "Even if I'm far from guessing correctly, however, I find it inconceivable that enough citizens even to approach forming a majority would have entered voluntarily into this contract."

Not that this is the manner in which policymakers make such policies. "[Our rulers] have calculated their own expected political gains and losses, and they have taken into account the gains and losses that will be reaped -- often in cold cash -- by the coalition of special-interest groups that supports them in holding onto power. The rest of us can resign ourselves to bearing the full costs, to our bank accounts as well as to our lives, limbs, and liberties, while our rulers feed us noble-sounding lies and promise us an outcome so lovely and implausible that only God could bring it to pass," Higgs concludes.

October 28: 4:00-5:00 pm (PT): Ivan Eland to be interviewed on "All-American Talk Radio with Peter B. Collins." Available on regular radio stations, Sirius satellite radio, and the Internet at http://www.iciclenetworks.com/aatr.htm.